text:
Does “balls to the wall” mean “full speed ahead” or “full speed ahead and nosedive”?
Full speed ahead: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/balls_to_the_wall
Full speed ahead and nosedive: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/02/why-we-say-balls-to-the-wall.html

It is unfortunate that that Slate article exists. It is wrong and it is being used as a reference in the Wikipedia entry.

Citogenesis at work, perhaps?

Again: is this english.se or aviation.se?

I said the WALL... not the ceiling! How many {morons} do we have on this ship?

When used in aviation it just means "everything forward" for maximum performance, everything being throttles, propeller RPM levers, and mixture control levers, where you need maximum performance. Not flight controls. It has nothing to do with diving; it's just a reference to maximum power.
The "balls" are the knobs traditionally used on throttle quadrants back in the 20s and 30s. The "wall" is represented by the instrument panel forward of the quadrant, or possibly the firewall in a single engine airplane.
When an engine quits on takeoff, one of first memory items is to confirm that all three sets of controls, throttle, prop and mixture, are all the way forward.
Supercharged piston engines of the day had a manifold pressure red line setting that you had to manage. You weren't just supposed to push the throttle all the way, you adjust it until the MP gauge is at a redline mark.
In an emergency however, you may elect to ignore the manifold pressure limit and make the engine produce whatever it could. In WW2 aircraft, there was a War Emergency Power setting, usually with a "gate" made of, or retained by, copper witness wire that would form a normal limit stop, but which you could break through if you pushed hard enough, to get everything the engine had (and probably damaging it in the process, which is why the witness wire).
Anyway, in an airplane like a DC-3 it's 6 balls, one on top of each lever. So it's a short-form and amusing slang description of shoving all of the engine control levers fully forward.
Another very similar phrase used commonly in aviation for throttles is to say "firewall it".  It means shove the throttle fully forward, with the joking inference or suggestion that you ram it so hard your fist ends up in the engine firewall.

Got it, so "Balls to the wall" is the aviation equivalent of the term "Floor" used in cars.

Pretty much, yeah.  There's similar phrase in flying, where you say "firewall it".

I’d say it’s more analogous to “pedal to the metal”

Yeah 'firewall it' could've originated with cars, but normally it would be 'floor it'.

The "balls" are the knobs traditionally used on throttle quadrants I always assumed  "balls" were an anatomic reference.  TIL!

One could also use "balls to the wall" to refer to the behavior of a flywheel governor at maximum RPM/power, where the flyweights are fully extended to the governor's outer casing, hence "balls to the wall"

Except that doesn't really make a lot of sense.  But if you find an instance written somewhere that predates the 1920s, it becomes plausible.

And there's me thinking it meant go so hard that if you nailed your testicles to the wall, you wouldn't notice...

It actually means "to cut every piece of red tape, do everything they could..."
My point is, it's slang.  It's old slang. It certainly isn't official aviation phraseology where a definition could be looked up.
So really it means whatever the user intends it to mean in the context where it is used.  I don't think you will get a more definitive answer than what's provided by the two links you posted in the question.
Personally I would vote against the control stick being one of the "balls".  They aren't shaped as balls, and I don't think diving is intended, but that's just an opinion.

shapes like balls: I think some were. P51 A/B Mustang perhaps.


text:
Is there a rule-of-thumb for estimating distance to an aeroplane?
It's generally hard for humans to estimate how far away an aircraft really is.
Question: Is there a standard rule for estimating the distance to an aircraft?
For example:

The entry/exit hatches are 2.4 metres high and your thumbnail at arms length translates to a 2.4 metre high door at 400 metres

Adults with normal 20/20 eyesight can make out an airliner's passenger windows in normal sunlight, so the plane is under 500 metres away, and over 500 metres if you can't make out individual windows.

Aircraft's registration code must be XX cm high and is therefore readable at up to 1000 metres.

Of course lighting and elevation differences, paint designs and model of plane, and even heading differences would mess it up a bit, but this is a rule of thumb in lieu of any other information.

For example, the popular fallout character is not giving a thumbs-up.  Instead he's comparing the size of a distant mushroom cloud to his thumb to see if he's outside the nuclear fallout zone.

Inspired by How close can planes fly to each other over the ocean?

Tags are not very good, sorry.  Feel free to edit/add.

the fallout guy thing sounds like an urban legend to me.

@Federico Mostly it is, with a tiny sliver of truth: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28918/is-measuring-the-size-of-a-nuclear-cloud-with-your-thumb-an-approximate-indicati

Related

@Pondlife thank you - definitely relevant.   I figured since doors and windows and registration numbers have a fairly-fixed size/height then such a working test might be possible.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
What are the differences between Canadian VNCs and US Sectional charts?
I've been looking at Canadian VNCs (VFR Navigation Charts) and they look surprisingly different from US sectionals. A big difference seems to be how the airspace is designed, but there seem to be a lot of other differences in how information is displayed. For example, here is the Denver class B airspace:

You have your basic upside down wedding cake, and a mode C veil.
Now here is the Calgary, Canada class B airspace:

Even though it's not a full picture of the airspace, there are some differences that jump out, like the choice of colors to indicate the airspace boundaries and elevation, and the fact that the airspace is HUGE! There is also no clear indication of a mode C veil, or the bottom/top of the airspace. Another thing I've noticed is the huge number of airspace boundaries, indicated by the lines that looks something like this: -_-_-_-_.
One more thing. There is no information about the Calgary or Springbank airports. Are airspace elevations, airport elevation, and frequencies all things you have to look up separately?

The short answer is the charts are different because they're made by different groups - NAV CANADA has different charting standards than the FAA/NACO uses.
Similarly Jeppesen makes VFR charts for the United States, and they look very different from a FAA/NACO chart:

I have charitably described the Jeppesen VFR+GPS charts as "technicolor puppy vomit" on more than one occasion.

As far as I'm aware there's no comprehensive listing of all the differences between the US VFR Sectional format and the Canadian VNC format, but the NavCanada charts have a legend and there Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) contains a great deal of additional information - it's essentially similar to the US Airport/Facility directory.
Unlike the US charts, Canadian Aeronautical Charts--including the VNC--do not have a specific expiration date. They are revised periodically.

I've made this answer Community Wiki in case someone who has spent significant time north of the border would like to fill in some of the differences and address the other points raised in the question.

This is a great answer. I had no idea there was so much variation in chart styles. The Jeppesen charts really take some getting used to after using the FAA charts.
Do you know why there are so many routes in Canada that have a ceiling above 700feet? It looks like there is a path between all airports.

@Arel The US has sufficient radar coverage to make nearly all of CONUS class E down to 700/1200 AGL.  Most of Canada, outside the cities, is non-radar and only has class E along airways, with ATC using position reports to provide separation.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
why are there no production canard GA aircraft?
You see a lot of experimental canard GA aircraft, and their performance characteristics seem great. Why don't we see any production canard designs?
EDIT
For clarification. I'm asking about small airplanes, competitors to the Cessna 172 or Piper Archer in size. I'm also asking about airplanes that you can purchase from a manufacturer, like the above aircraft. An example of a company attempting to eventually make a small canard style production GA aircraft is Raptor Aircraft

A brief Google search reveals many production canard designs.

@Simon, those are not production GA aircraft ...

@Simon, After looking at several of those pictures, I could not find a single result that was a production GA aircraft.

When you say "production", are you excluding kits?

Is the P180 too big to be considered "GA"?

@Simon, Yes, when I say production, I mean mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public, and able to be legally flown.

OK, then yes, I couldn't find any either.  But that's not what you're looking for ;)

@fooot, the P180 is technically GA, but I'm asking about your smaller 4 - 6 seater GA aircraft like a C172 or a Piper Archer. Also, the Beechcraft Starship is a better example of a the type of canard design I'm thinking about.

@Simon, I'm sorry you didn't understand my question. I'll try to be more specific in the future.

@Arel NP.  Just a question of terminology.  Kits are production to me...cheers

Why would you fly with a deployed spoiler when you can have a clean aircraft? Sure, there are many canard kit plane designs, but when you look closer at their performance, its is not improved by the location of the elevator. Burt Rutan would always choose a higher wing loading than required to fulfill the FAR part 23 requirements for low speed, so his designs could cruise faster. When asked about this, his usual response was "**ck the FAA!".
When you look closely, canards will give you:

With natural pitch stability a higher lift coefficient on the forward wing which also needs to have some margin for control surface deflections. Consequently, the big, rear wing is operating at a fraction of its potential when the aircraft stalls.
The vorticity from the front wing creates a downwash at the mid section of the rear wing and an upwash at the outer sections. The strength of these induced speeds varies with speed, so the main wing can produce an elliptic circulation at only one angle of attack. At other angles, its induced drag is higher than what is possible with a conventional configuration.
The center of gravity is ahead of the main wing, so the landing gear needs to retract into the fuselage, taking space away from the cockpit. To move the wing center section forward, so it can accommodate the landing gear, the wing needs to be swept (which creates a host of problems of its own).
There is no good position to put a vertical surface, so again sweep is used to shift some part of the airframe backwards and combine the vertical with winglets. Those need to point upwards, so they do not hit the ground during take-off and landing when the better winglet would point downwards.

Canards start to make sense when they are unstable, but this is not a good approach for a GA aircraft.

The Piaggio P-180 is a GA aircraft with a canard.

It has a canard AND a horizontal stabilizer.  Without the latter, it was rather unstable in flight.  And the 180 is not fly-by-wire.


text:
Are there special safety considerations when flying to/in Atlantic Canada?
I'm considering a trip to Nova Scotia from New York in a Cessna 172 or a Piper Archer. The trip is about 3.5 - 5 hours long and could involve some small open ocean portions. Since Nova Scotia has variable weather, high wind, and is pretty rural, I'm interested in knowing if anyone has any recommendations, warnings, or resources for flying to Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.
I know this questions is pretty broad, so I welcome any suggestions for narrowing the scope. I've just had a hard time finding anything on the internet about making a trip to the area.

Are you instrument rated? You may be stuck if fog rolls in.

Nope. Going to start in the fall. That's a good point though.

Plan for unexpected weather amid limited options for dealing with it.  I've flown a number of times between Newark (EWR) and Halifax NS (YHZ), Moncton NB (YQM), and St Johns, NL (YYT).  It can be quite foggy and windy and in the cold months braking action can become a factor.  A lack of options can be problematic.  When we flew EWR-YHZ we often chose EWR as an alternate and I've turned around as late as talking to Halifax approach as braking action become NIL and we didn't have gas to wait it out.  Going out to YYT we'd only have enough gas to get to Gander (YQX) if we couldn't get a good approach in at St Johns.  I flew a capable jet under IFR with Cat II approach capabilities so your concerns will be slightly different down low and VFR.
Although you are VFR, I'd play by IFR rules as alternates and fuel is concerned.  Plan enroute alternates and carry enough gas to get to your destination and get to your second choice with some gas to spare.  The weather can turn quickly and the fog in any of the maritime airports can be thick enough to turn even IFR GA planes away.  Have a plan to be able to get on the ground somewhere else.  Also consider how fatigue will play into your decision making once you are out there.

Great answer! Thanks! I've decided based on these answers to just wait until next summer when I'm instrument rated and have another years worth of experience to rely on.

If you are heading out over open water many people will tell you take a twin engine plane. But that may be impractical or not possible if you are not rated to do so. You may want to consider investing in or renting (if you can) an EPIRB if you are worried about the open water section. Some type II PFDs are cheap and may provide a piece of mind. Depending on where you are the north atlantic is very cold so ditching is more of a time issue than anything. No need to go crazy with it and useful load may prevent it but you can always get a life raft.
- Edit
As listed here the area can see thick fog roll in from the ocean. This will pose 2 issues for you, one is substantial worse than the other. On the safe side you may be stuck on the ground when you need to get the rented plane back. This may be no more than a monetary issue (if they charge you some late fee or something). The far worse case is being stuck in the air and having to divert (potentially far) to land safely under VFR. Keep in mind that even under IFR there are minimums and ground fog may knock out even an instrument approach. Either way it still gives you a solid other option.
You should really get to know the emergency procedures for open water ditching and rescue as per my earlier notes as well.
I assume you will plan a fuel stop somewhere in Maine (right before you turn out over water). That is a leg I would want to tackle with full tanks any way. Keep in mind 3.5-5 hours in an archer or 172 can be a grueling task. There are lots of fatiguing factors here. I would try and get the plane and just fly in your area for 3.5 hours (if you have not already) to make sure you feel comfortable being up for that long.
If you use anything digital like an iPad etc, backup batteries are a must. I would even being back up paper charts for this journey. GPS could be a life saver too.
I would think customs is some how involved but I have never flown out of the country so I don't know, if you have not you should look into it and make sure there is nothing you need to do ahead of time.

Make thorough backup plans for any kind of weather problems such as low visibility or high winds. Always have a place to land and stay over.
Make sure your emergency locator thingy is new and working.
Have a small survival kit which includes matches.
Make sure you have a backup radio and GPS.
Personally, if I was flying over the Bay of Fundy I would bring a size A or B oxygen tank and fly at 15,000 feet during the middle part. If you do that, you can pretty much stay within gliding distance of land the whole way. (You know the best glide speed of both aircraft, right?)
By the way, the neck off St. Mary's Bay looks pretty bad for off-field landings so you definitely want to pick a spot beforehand.
...and remember, the engine always runs rougher over water :-)

I wouldn't fly a plane on my own if I didn't know the best glide speed, and I literally laughed out loud at "the engine always runs rougher over water" I like that one.


text:
Is there a way to see the radar info ATC has?
I want to track GA helicopter traffic coming and going from NYC. I know that most routes the helicopters fly require them to pick up a transponder code from ATC, which means they are in the system.
Is there a public feed of that ATC data?
EDIT:
Just to clarify, As far as I understand, sites like flightradar24.com and flightaware.com only track aircraft transmitting ADS-B out or with Mode-S transponders. I'm interested in tracking aircraft with Mode-C transponders that have picked up a unique transponder code in order to enter the class B.

No there's not, but you can use services such as https://www.flightradar24.com/

As far as I understand, sites like flightradar24.com and flightaware.com only track aircraft transmitting ADS-B out or with Mode-S transponders. I'm interested in tracking aircraft with Mode-C transponders that have picked up a unique transponder code.

You can't track a Mode-C transponder since it doesn't broadcast location data with the interrogation. All you get with Mode-C is the squawk code and altitude.

An old-school method would be to monitor the frequency(ies) used in the airspace you're interested in via a handheld radio.

I'm already doing that, but was trying to find an automated way of tracking specific flights for business reasons.

@RonBeyer Yes, you CAN track Mode-C transponder but multiple receivers are needed and the position is calculated by comparing time delays between receivers - see: Multilateration

See this question as to why helicopters don't show in flightradar24

If you are in or around NYC, flightradar24 will give you most, but not all, traffic including helos and ATC radar traffic.
flightradar24 most likely has several ADS-B receivers in that area that not only catch aircraft transponder/UAT output, but they also catch FAA ADS-B ground station broadcasts. The ground station will broadcast any known traffic (mode C radar traffic included) that ATC is aware of to any client aircraft that are in the area that have their ADS-B output configured to inform the ground station that they are capable of displaying traffic data. Most private GA aircraft with ADS-B are configured this way because there are iPad apps that will display it while airborne. The ground station will broadcast that traffic and a local flightradar24 receiver gets it too and up it goes on the website. The data may be limited to just aircraft in the vicinity of the client aircraft but in an area like NYC, there are typically many GA aircraft (clients) out there at any time that are configured as ADS-B in capable.


text:
How are multi vs single engine helicopters categorized?
When looking at the FAA category, class, type list, you have airplane single-engine land, multi-engine land, etc. but just rotorcraft helicopter, gyrocopter, etc.
How do I specify a multi vs single engine helicopter? Does the FAA differentiate, or are you able to fly a multi engine helicopter the day you get your helicopter certificate?
For context, I'm making a web form where an operator can add their aircraft, and I want to be able to sort by single or multi engine helicopters because sometimes people request a multi engine helicopter.
I ended up just doing this:

A lot of helicopters require a type rating to fly. I'm not sure what you mean by "specify in my own way", specify to who?

Good point. I clarified the question

Do you really mean helicopters with multiple engines, or are you actually asking about helicopter with multiple rotors?

Helicopters with one vs two engines.

It seems you question boils down to "what information is available from FAA site to determine if a given rotorcraft is a multi-turbine helicopter?"

I know you've asked for US, but you could do it easy in Australia which uses two simple classes for non-type rated helicopters - Multi-engine helicopter (MEH) and Single-engine helicopter (SEH).

Can you make your own mapping table so when operators add their aircrafts they have to specify whether it is single engine or multi engine? Unless you have master table of aircraft somewhere....

Yeah, I could do that. I've also considered just auto filling in the information from the FAA database.


text:
Missing shear pin for tow-bar / front landing gear
Sitting on the runway about to takeoff, and the captain comes over the intercom saying that we need to return to the gate.
From the quick announcement, it sounded like he said they found a 'shear pin' at the gate, or with the tow-bar, and we needed to have maintenance inspect the front landing gear.
The aircraft is an A321.
I can't imagine the shear pin was a part of the physical landing gear, but was probably piece of the tow-bar itself? I found the manual for the a320's tow-bar which shows the shear pin in the diagram on PDF page #11, item #6, within the bar assembly itself.
Why would our aircraft need to return to the gate for inspection, wouldn't they need to inspect the tow-bar instead? That says with the tug, does it not?

The Capt would have just repeated or paraphrased whatever Maintenance Control told him.  If a push back is done with the nose wheel scissors connected, it is critical for the tug driver to respect the steering angle limits of the nosewheel to avoid bottoming the steering actuators and stressing the parts.
Although the shear pin protects (hopefully) from major damage it still puts significant loads on the scissors and nosewheel steering system, beyond what those components would normally see.   If they find the towbar shear pin damaged or loose or sheared completely (although that should have been obvious while connected) after a push back, Maintenance will have to assume there was a steering angle exceedence event and there is likely to be a maintenance requirement to inspect the steering system, hence the return to gate.
My guess is that when the tug got back to the gate, someone noticed the pin was deformed, or some other abnormality, and they brought the airplane back for the inspection to play it safe.

Neccessary or not, kudos to the guy who caught the issue and got the airplane back to be checked. It's people like this who play a part in  ensuring safety is never compromised.

You can avoid the risk of steering angle exceedence by pushing back with the  scissors disconnected (the scissors knuckle has quick-release T-handle plungers and the upper scissors link has a spring to hold it up), but now the crew has no way to confirm for themselves the plungers were re-engaged, and if not fully seated the scissors can come apart later, with potentially unpleasant consequences; hence pushing with scissors engaged, requiring extreme care by the tug driver and the shear pin in the bar just in case.

I remember the Douglas DC-8 and 9s having the quick disconnect on the scissor (drag-link) but on most of the other types its a hollow nut and bolt, lock-wired.. not easily removed and connected.

Depends I guess.  All the RJs have the quick disconnect.

Thanks JohnK. haven't had much experience withe these. Live and learn!

I’m going to give you a little bit of maintenance advice from a mechanic who has been dealing with stuff like this for 20 years:
Rule No. 1: Never, ever take the pilot’s words at face value. This is not a sleight against pilots but they just don’t speak the same language as we do. They are not taught to troubleshoot, investigate, or do anything remotely close to helping you fix the airplane. If they say “shear pin” it’s about as valuable as them saying “magical bolt.” I don’t mean that to sound nasty, but if you followed the flight crews’ recommendations on how to fix the problem, the plane would just sit forever. Their training and our training are simply not equal.
Rule 2: You are the Doctor, the pilot and his airplane are the patient. This falls somewhat in line with Rule #1. When a patient comes in and says something is wrong with his leg, that’s about all a doctor gets. That’s the level you should keep it at. Ask any doctor and they’ll almost completely agree that having patients diagnose themselves is NOT a good idea. Are they completely incapable? No. However, their depth of knowledge and access to information is simply nowhere near as great as ours is. Don’t let them steer you into the land of outliers.
Rule #3: Occam’s Razor: The simplest explanation is often the best explanation. That is... maybe a nose landing gear valve is stuck and the crew, knowing nothing about the world of aviation maintenance, declared it as a shear pin. The valve is most likely stuck due to mechanical failure or someone left the LOCKOUT pin installed while performing maintenance. Again, refer to rules 1 and 2.
Rule #4: A flight crew who cries wolf is actually right once in a while. This seems contradictory to rules 1 & 2 but it’s not. You see this sometimes with a flight crew member who consistently is incorrect about something. You see their ID number, remember it, and then think “Oh yeah... This is the guy who should be driving a bus, not an airplane.” As a result, you just sign it off. This is a fundamental flaw, like that of a doctor with a hypochondriac patient... you should always investigate on the basis of greatest caution.
Rule # 5: Don’t let anyone ever push you into a diagnosis or an ETIC. If the plane is down for 25 years and growing roots because of your estimated repair time, then so be it. By all means, do everything you can to get the plane up in a safe manner, but don’t cut corners to make a lead or manager happy. They can go to hell. Just investigate and do what’s necessary.
Rule # 6: If you don’t believe me about Rule #1 and #2, get into a conversation with a pilot about how flight crews enter their flight plan into the FMS. You’ll soon find out that you know nothing about it and they know everything about it. Then show them the system schematic of the FMS system and you’ll see their eyes get a befuddled look at what it all means while you stare confidently ahead. We just don’t speak the same language, PERIOD.

This seems more like an extended comment to me @Frank, as it doesn't actually answer the question. Granted, we pilots can be like computer users to tech support specialists, you always start from the beginning, but that doesn't mean you ignore everything that's said by pilots or cabin crew.

@GdD I did answer the question (refer to Rule #3). The declaration of a towbar shear pin when one clearly doesn’t exist is exactly what the OP is asking about. It might have been a bypass pin - which is a common thing - but it’s not a shear pin. Pilots really have no idea that what they say can be taken in many different ways because of the psychology of them “being in command of

your rules do not translate to an answer for me, Rule 3 does not stand out, if you're saying that the shear pin doesn't exist then I'd suggest making that clearer.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does opening of emergency doors over wings, lead to automatic lowering of the aircraft's wings?
When the emergency doors over the wings are opened do the wings automatically lower themselves, to allow passengers to slide and reach the ground? Or does the pilot have to do it from the cockpit?

I initially read "lowering of gear" and I was actually looking for an answer. then I realized thet you are asking about lowering the wings!? Where have you seen/heard of such a thing?

I saw an image on the airline safety card, which displayed how people are supposed to alight the aircraft over the wings. It showed the rear wings / flaps are completely lowered, over which people slide and come to the ground

ah, lowering "the wings" gives quite a different mental image than "lowering the flaps"

does the wings outside automatically lower themselves, to allow passengers to slide and reach the ground. Or does the pilot have to do it from the cockpit - bad assumption.  Neither is true.  Do you mean lower the flaps?

@Simon I mean both

The wings cannot be moved, either automatically, or from the cockpit.  What do you mean "both"?

Although this seems to be a strange question for those of us with aviation knowledge, I don't agree with the close votes - it's still an on-topic, valid (if slightly obvious to most of us) question, which is clear to understand and also has a single clear answer. Therefore it does, I believe, still fit as an Aviation.SE question.

@JonStory  The close vote is not for "off topic".  I've asked Firee for clarification of flaps vs wings which has not been given.  It is often the case that non-aviators start with a misconception and it is not at all clear to me that the OP does not believe that the wings themselves move.

Regardless, the question in the current format is a clear, valid question.

@Simon: The wings cannot be moved, either automatically, or from the cockpit. What do you mean "both"? How would I know the wings cannot be moved, hence I asked the question. Also, if you read my comments, my assumption is based on the image of the safety card, in which the wing had almost touched the ground.

I did a quick search through airplane safety cards and could not find any that depict the wings lowered. Do you perhaps know what airplane (or even airline - allowing us to narrow down type) you were flying with when you saw this?

@Jamiec: It was Jet Airways, aircraft was B767

@Firee My point was in the question I asked - "do you mean lower the flaps?"   People often ask questions in comments and it's always useful to answer them.  If you don't know what flaps are either, just say so and people will fill in the blanks.  Your question., paraphrased, asks "automatic or from the cockpit".  You asked a "this or that" question to which the answer is neither.  I've edited your question to assist as I now assume you do mean flaps and retracted my close vote.

Simon, there is still absolutely no reason to assume the asker means flaps, as the safety card they saw may have been, for example, a crash landed, low wing aircraft with its gear raised. And regardless, your close request was unwarranted with the original (valid) question. You've now potentially changed the meaning of the question entirely.

I have to second Jon Story, if the OP meant wings we should not change it only because it makes no sense to us.

@JonStory I am simply trying to help the OP.  If the question is "do the wings move automatically or from the cockpit", the only correct answer is "neither" and the question makes no sense.  How will it help future visitors or people searching? It might also help the OP to understand the difference between wings and flaps. I'm just trying to help but I can't get excited about it.  Just undo the edit if you do.  BTW, I am as entitled as anyone, in a community curated site to close.  Just as you are not to or to re-open.  I might consider yours unwarranted but that's why we have votes.

The question makes perfect sense. Sometimes 'no' is the correct answer. In fact the 'best' answer would probably be to say neither, then point out that his impression may have come from either flaps (eg most aircraft would typically lower flaps before crash landing) or a gear up landing. Answer the question better rather than changing the question to match the answer you'd like to give

@JonStory I have no plan to add any answer.  And my comment which started the nonsense storm did exactly as you propose. Please read my first comment again.  As I say, feel free to undo the edit.

Just a reminder from the tour: This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat. and Use comments to ask for more information or clarify a question or answer.

Wings are static.
The wings do not move in response to emergency door opening. There is no requirement regarding position of flaps, in most cases involving an emergency evacuation after landing, flaps are likely to be extended, but I don't think this is guaranteed.
Evacuation assistance
On commercial transport aircraft, there are marked routes on the wing for passengers and, if the exit point is more than 6ft from the ground, there are self-inflating slides that allow passengers to reach the ground.

Image from video by "Airline_Alex"

Evacuation on water
The inflated slides also work as life-rafts in the event that the aircraft comes to rest in water and has to be evacuated. Generally this applies only to slides at main exits, over-wing exits have slides that are not designed to be used in this way.
 US 1549

Regulations
The regulations in the USA say

Each passenger-carrying landplane emergency exit (other than over-the-wing) that is more that 6 feet from the ground with the airplane on the ground and the landing gear extended must have an approved means to assist the occupants in descending to the ground.

The manufacturer must demonstrate that they can evacuate all passengers and crew to the ground within 90 seconds using only half the emergency exits.
This applies to aircraft capable of carrying more than 44 passengers.

Variations in arrangements by aircraft
Not all aircraft need overwing exits and slides. Here are some B757 variants

From CRJ Resets
Boeing 737
As commenters have noted, the 737 does not have self-inflating slides for its over-wing exits.

Pessini
The 737 system does not always work very well

Passengers climbed onto both wings, which
  were slippery due to the rain, but were able to see
  the markings indicating the direction of movement. It
  was difficult to see the ground in the dark and some
  passengers were not aware that they should slide down
  the flap surfaces. Others expected to find an escape
  slide. On the left wing, some passengers slid down
  onto the ground and assisted others. On the right
  wing, fewer people slid down to the ground, while
  others re‑entered the cabin and exited it using door
  escape slides when it was apparent that there were no
  visible signs of danger.

- from AAIB report

Do all commercial airlines have over-wing slides?

@Firee I believe that every exit door will have a slide attached so that if the plane makes an emergency landing, passengers & crew will be able to safely make it to the ground - it can be a pretty significant drop.

@Federico; Thanks, that video depicted it very well. However, isn't there a risk of the blast from the engines in this scenario?

@Firee It is standard practice to shut off the engines after an emergency landing (assuming they're still running after everything stops moving). Generally the cabin crew will not begin the evacuation until that has been accomplished as having your passengers survive an emergency landing only to be swallowed up or blown away by the engines makes for really bad press.

@Firee jetblast (and passengers getting sucked in) is an issue with the other exits as well. that's why they get shut down.

B737 does not have slides for its overwing exits and passengers are expected to slide down the flaps, which is I suppose the reason for the question.

Note that shutting down the engines may not always be possible. In the QF32 accident, shrapnel from the exploded engine severed the control lines to the still running one, and as a result, with no control inputs to tell it otherwise, the FADEC kept it running at the last power settings. The fire brigade had to shut it down by shooting foam directly into the intake.

@JanHudec: You are right. If you read my comments in the question, I do mention that the image on the safety card did not show any slide.

@JörgWMittag: The QF32 accident is really an interesting read. I wonder, couldn't they have evacuated the passengers from the other side of the aircraft, where the engines had completely stopped, or is it a danger to be anywhere near a plane with one of its engines running

@Firee: They probably could have evacuated, if they really wanted to. But why? The aircraft had safely landed, all fires were extinguished. Evacuating via the slides pretty much always leads to broken bones, so that's definitely worse than sitting around for an hour. They could have brought airstairs to the port side exits and evacuated the passengers directly into shuttle busses, making sure nobody wanders around the airplane, but still, why risk it? They were probably sitting there drinking coffee, feasting on delicious airline food, and there was no real danger.

@Firee: Actually, I just re-watched the episode, and it turns out, they did evacuate with the outboard engine still running. The reason they didn't evacuate before was that the aircraft was still leaking fuel onto the runway, not because of the running engine. They evacuated via stairs (which is much safer than slides) as soon as all the fuel had been covered in firefighting foam. In the archive footage you can see firefighters walk around the aircraft quite close to the engine while attempting to "shoot it out".

@JörgWMittag : I just watched it too on YT. What I was amazed, was the ability of the engine to withstand so much water spray and still keep running. They explained that the engine is designed to withstand torrential rains. Just curious as to how much amount of water/rain could those engines withstand.

@Firee: You should ask another question, engine water ingestion is not sufficiently related to this Q about over-wing-exits. Also ... [chat].

There are no transport aircraft where the wings would be movable.
However if you meant flaps, the question would make sense.
In most aircraft the overwing exits are equipped with inflatable slides that inflate aft over the wing trailing edge (see the image in the other answer). However in some aircraft it is indeed intended that the escaping persons will slide down the flaps, most notably on Boeing 737:

(copied from this answer, the original source seems unfortunately dead)
No, the flaps don't move automatically. The pilots have to extend them. Worse, the flaps require power to move and they move rather slowly, so they may not extend all the way due to lack of time or failure of the necessary systems.
I've seen some incident report involving evacuation where it was mentioned that the flaps were not extended all the way down due to lack of time, but I don't remember enough details to find the reference now.

The dead source is from here where they have a 737-700/-800 flight safety card currently for sale.


text:
What is an airliner pilot's first go-to if he or she doesn’t have a positive climb rate immediately after take off?
Assuming a typical transport-class aircraft, what would the pilot do if the aircraft does not have a positive rate of climb immediately after takeoff?
Would the pilot just lower the nose to pick up airspeed, then raise it back up once they’re satisfied? Or maybe retract the flaps a bit? Assuming the throttle is at 94% N1, would applying full throttle at that point even stop the decline in speed?

They would go to crash site first.

Why is your question directed to the B737? The answer applies to ALL aircraft. It seems you are digging for dirt where there is none to be found.

@MikeSowsun not digging for anything. Just learning dude. Sorry you take it the wrong way.

This is an absurd question... the jet will have a positive rate of climb even with one engine out.  The 737 has more than ample thrust to have a highly positive rate of climb immediately after takeoff.  If you've lost an engine, you deal with that (while climbing). If you're in windshear, you'd use those procedures.  But if you rotate & don't get a positive rate, it's because your pitch attitude is too low, so raise the nose to a normal attitude, and you'll climb away just fine.

I only added 737 because I’m not sure if other aircraft have different procedures for this. And I’m specifically interested in the 737

@RalphJ There have been quite a few accidents with planes not gaining altitude after lift-off: USAir 405, Air Florida 90, almost all of which had to do with incorrect de-icing prior to takeoff.

Hail Mary, full of grace . . .

@RalphJ If you’re too slow or heavy, say because of pitot issues or incorrect performance or weight and balance, then lowering the nose would be correct rather than pulling.

The first thing I would do is advance thrust to maximum available thrust, make sure both engines are indeed operating.
Next I'd check is if the speedbrake is stowed.
I would not consider retracting flaps because when you are too slow to climb you are definitely too slow to retract flaps... could be deadly.
Normally this kind of situation can't happen unless you have at least one engine failure and the remaining engine not working at full thrust or the wings are contaminated with ice or snow. The aircraft is perfectly capable of climbing on one engine, so if you have two engines on max takeoff power and are still not climbing then something is seriously wrong.
In case of ice/snow on the wings, well there is not much you can do about that in the air, put on wing anti ice and hope that it is quick enough to clear the wings of any contamination, this comes at a penalty of losing precious thrust because of the bleed air extraction. This situation is usually avoided by removing snow and ice from the wings whilst still on the ground - before taking off.

There could be something wrong with speed and/or weight, too.

This sort of scenario happens from time to time. Before a flight the crew will calculate the flap setting and speed at which the aircraft rotates based on aircraft weight, the weather conditions, and runway length. If any of these are entered incorrectly, the aircraft could rotate too soon and not lift off when expected.
To decrease wear on the engines, modern jet airliners will often use less than full takeoff thrust. If the crew finds the aircraft is not accelerating or lifting off as expected, they can increase the thrust to the full takeoff setting. This is probably the first thing to check as it's a quick and easy step that would help get the aircraft up to the necessary speed and in the air faster.
It's very unlikely that a crew would decrease flaps in this situation, as this would decrease the lift, and thus take even longer for the aircraft to lift off. There have been several crashes where insufficient flaps were suspected as a contributing factor, causing the airplane to not lift off as expected and making it more difficult to control at low speeds. The crew might actually increase flaps to lower the speed needed to lift off.
The crew may also decide to to reject the takeoff. By the time an aircraft is rotating, there may not be enough runway left to stop safely, so the crew must make a quick decision as to what the safest option is.

First I would check on PM for pilot incapacitation as it might be the first cause.
Then, if the plane is indeed not climbing if because something was totally wrong. Even with one engine failure you are supposed to have a positive rate of climb on the 1st segment and 2.4% on the 2nd segment.
Make sure the trust setting is correct.
Retracting the flaps would cause you to sink at this moment.

This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review

Why not? I answered my first go-to would be to check the PM!
You shouldn't care too much about virtual reputation. My reputation is the +6000h as a jetliner Captain.

Oh, @FONSPA this is interesting. I'm damn sure I have not reviewed your answer, that's some weird bug in the system. Regarding your answer: why would you check on PM for incapacitation? You'd be the PF, so PM would be handling comms, right? You are, ofcourse, spot on with the rest of the answer.

My answer is not applicable to all types of Aircraft/Operations. On a multi-crew airplane, the PM will be the one calling for a positive rate/climb. If he doesn't, maybe he is incapacitated or distracted. If it is the actual airplane that is not climbing then the second part of my answer applies.
I also remembered that in some places there is a lot of cheating and people are paid to put extra cargo in the cargo hold without the extra weight being accounted for. It happened to me in Asia when we used to have 2 loadsheets. The official one and the real one...

As PF you have your own gauges to verify positive climb. If your gauges do not show positive climb, most likely PM's gauges will not either. So if you've rotated -> no positive climb on your gauges, apply full throttle and check speedbrake (as stated in previous answers) + possibly something else from your memory items. The condition of PM and pos. climb callout are totally secondary and have no immediate effect on the matter whatsoever.

@ymb1 isn't that why pilots wear a shoulder harness, to prevent collapsing onto the controls? (Or, at least some of the reason)

Jpe61 as a PF during takeoff roll I'm looking outside 90% of time and PM the opposite. Of course, if the problem is not about positive rate call but instead of the plane not actually climbing that's a different story.

Jpe61, be careful when you say "Apply full throttle"! If you do that on a derated takeoff you might kill yourself! Instead, you should say "Apply maximum available thrust". When you derate your maximum available thrust is less than full throttle and by doing so might lose control of the airplane because the VMCG for derating is different than full throttle.
Check speedbrake? Ok...but speedbrake is checked on TOGA with takeoff warning. Memory items? There are no memory items for this!
So in effect your answer doesn't add anything and doesn't solve the problem

FreeMan, on the original Boeing 737 checklist do you know how many times are shoulder harness (or even harness) mentioned? Zero!
You would be surprised with how many people forget them.


text:
What are the advantages/disadvantages of in-fuselage engines (eg most fighter jets) vs wing/fuselage mounted engines?
Most modern jet fighter designs incorporate their engine(s) within the fuselage, while most other medium/large aircraft mount them either under the wings or on the rear fuselage.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of in-fuselage jet engine placement, compared to those mounted on the fuselage or wings of an aircraft?

Advantages and disadvantages compared to what? Earlier piston-engined warplanes? Please [edit] your question so we can give you the kind of answer you're looking for.

An advantage of wing mounting the engines is that it frees up fuselage space for cargo, be it boxed or self-loading.

Related: How does the mounting location of a jet engine affect aircraft performance?

The answer is roll inertia.
Fighter aircraft need to maneuver quickly, and one of the most important parameters is roll speed. In order to achieve a high roll rate quickly, low moment of inertia in roll is helpful. Placing the engines on the wing would increase roll inertia without much benefit in air combat.
Wing-mounted engines can only be found in designs which were optimized for raw speed, such as the P-38 or the YF-12. Even the Me-262 was initially designed with fuselage-mounted engines, hence its triangular fuselage cross section. Only when the engines grew in diameter during development had they to be relocated to the wing.
Disadvantages of fuselage-mounted engines:

Worse accessibility for maintenance.
Variants using a different engine cost much more to develop.
Engine fires or loss of a turbomachinery blade pose a much bigger threat to the structure.
No bending moment relief or flutter damping for the wing.
Complex intake geometry with boundary layer splitter plate, unless the intake is in the fuselage nose. The air requirements of high bypass ratio engines cause high losses with side intakes.

Note that at supersonic speed the engine can actually benefit from the proximity of a fuselage: The precompression of the forward fuselage of the F-16 or the Dassault Rafale help to increase thrust, especially when it is most needed at high angles of attack (well, those relatively high angles in supersonic turns, that is).
Advantages of fuselage-mounted engines:

Low moment of inertia in roll.
Lower overall surface area, thus lower friction drag, when compared to podded engines.
Precompression of the forward fuselage can be used to increase supersonic thrust.

I'll add a disadvantage to the list, difficulty in swapping the engine for a different model.  As an airplane ages it is common to be updated with new engines and electronics.  Newer electronics are often smaller and lower power so those updates are rarely a problem.  New engines models though must fit in a very constrained space, as opposed to hanging from the wing and not dragging on the ground.  An advantage is stealth.  With a smoother outline it's easier to minimize radar return.

@MacGuffin Right, and this was especially hard for the British and Russian designs with wingroot-mounted engines (Comet, Tu-104, Victor, Valiant). The first jet engine with bypass (RR Conway) was restricted to a bypass ratio of 0.25 so it would fit into the existing airplanes.

Advantages of placement in the fuselage:

low drag, which enables high speeds

disadvantages:

difficult installation (so more time spent on maintenance)
lots of noise
no flexibility in engine installation (you can't easily update the aircraft with a new, larger engine)
lots of space taken up by the engines and ducting
constraints on the center of gravity (heavy engine in the back, lots of empty ducting in front of the engine)

disadvantages of engines under the wing:

on aircraft with a low wing (e.g. to make the wing box pass underneath the cabin), you need longer landing gear
more drag due to extra frontal area

Most fighter jets operate at much lower bypass ratios than commercial jets. At low bypass ratios and high speeds, drag is important, and it's simply more efficient to embed the engine within the airframe. At high bypass ratios, the engine is a large assembly that's difficult to embed.
The A-10 has separated nacelle engines, while being a combat (attack) jet. The very large Concorde had nacelles flush to the fuselage. Both were tradeoffs, and in this case supersonic flight does call for reducing the cross-section.

Are you sure about the location of the Concorde engines? They still are in nacelles, but those are directly attached to the lower wing.

Had you mentioned the XB-70 rather than Concorde you'd have been almost right.

@PeterKämpf Right, nacelle but not pylon mounted.

You may notice that the primary difference between the two classes of aircraft you mention is maximum designed airspeed. To allow supersonic performance, low drag considerations such as the area rule are more easily met with in-fuselage engines. Minimizing radar reflections, withstanding high G loads and other effects also apply. The fighters are also smaller and lighter than many medium or larger aircraft as well.

So what about the B-58 Hustler?

Like the XB-70A or the SR-71, it's not a "jet fighter" as described in the original question. My initial answer included all three as exceptions but I deleted that. Good point, though, Peter!


text:
What is an Enhanced surveillance system?
What is the purpose of enhanced surveillance system and what are the benefits of installing it? And what information is available from this system?

Maybe you should ask Boeing?

… or your company. They should know why they want to install it.

Enhanced Surveillance (EHS) is a variant of Mode S transponder protocol that includes Downlink Aircraft Parameters (DAP) in the information returned by the airborne Mode S transponder.
Mode S can be configured as Mode S Elementary Surveillance (ELS) or Enhanced Surveillance. EHS is the concept behind ELS, ELS being a limited implementation. ELS is deemed analog avionics aircraft oriented while aircraft with digital avionics should use EHS.
While ELS allows for selective interrogation of a Mode S transponder to obtain barometric altitude, EHS allows also to request DAP. These data are intended to be used by ATC to face the rapid traffic increase observed in Europe. With no surprise this initiative is driven by Eurocontrol.
The use of DAP is expected to limit voice communication between ATC and crews. DAP includes:

Source: Eurocontrol
In general, ATC automation tends to get all parameters providing information on current position, but also to anticipate short-term position. This is why roll angle or vertical rate are part of the DAP.
Mode S EHS takes benefit of Extended Squitter (1090 ES).
Related:

Transponder
Transponder interrogation modes
Mode S
ELS and EHS

"ELS and EHS" link is broken :(

@Line: Restored!


text:
Why do planes sometimes make a touch-and-go?
I have seen airplanes on YouTube and even in my country doing a touch-and-go.

I don't know why planes come down from thousands of feet just to touch the runway and then fly away:

Is it for show?
Is it to check the landing gear?
Is it because of a malfunction?
Does it increase the use of fuel?

Why do planes make a touch-and-go?

There are different possible reasons, so you're most likely to get an answer that's relevant to you if you tell us more about the context of your question. Have you seen some airplanes doing this recently? What kind of airplanes, where, and when?

to expand on Dan's comment: if you do not specify, the answer would need to be too long, and thus the question could get closed as too broad.

I believe the main reason for touch and go is pilot training (mostly on smaller planes though). Then there’s probably tests of new aircraft. There’s air shows. There are also aborted landings, but it’s probably rare that they actually touch in those cases.

At my home airport, we regularly get airliners doing touch & goes for crew training. It’s the quickest way to get the aircraft positioned for another approach, and thus best use of time when training approaches.

And then there's the exceedingly rare case where the crew is getting landing gear failure indicators and want to test whether the gear is actually locked before making the landing.

related: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19493/how-frequent-are-touch-and-gos

To practice approaches, traffic patterns and landings without the added downtime of taxiing back for another takeoff.  Pilots have to maintain proficiency in these skills by practicing them on a regular basis and touch and gos are some of the best ways to do this.  It can also be used for meeting regulatory currency for carrying passengers depending on local time and landing gear configuration of the airplane.  In terms of gas consumption, it’s no less wasteful than a stop and go or a taxi back.  It’s not just for small aircraft either.   I’ve seen plenty of large military aircraft doing pattern work like that as well as there is no substitute for the real thing.  Airliners occasionally do touch and gos, but generally as part of a test flight after major maintenance; company pilots will fly approaches and landings in a level D full motion simulator simply because it’s cheaper and can simulate a wide range of conditions and emergency contingencies as well.

A full stop and taxi is also wastes a lot of time - not just the taxi time, but after a full stop it is mandatory to repeat the full set of pre-takeoff checks. The main use of touch-and-go in commercial aviation is in qualifying new pilots - actually being on a real flight deck is a very different psychological experience from being in a flight simulator, where however badly you mess up, you aren't going to die, or wreck a plane costing millions of dollars.

Not necessarily.  Some checklist items eg runup checks can be bypassed as already completed and most pre-takeoff checks can be as simple as flaps, lights, transponder, go depending on the airplane in question.  As for a real full motion sim dedicated to aircraft type being different from the real thing, most pilots will complete their initial and recurrent type ratings in sims, not to mention most practice flying will be done there as well.  It’s VERY close to the real thing.

Training flights are a major difference between the US and Europe. Traditionally, EASA and its predecessors have required 6 real takeoffs and landings for a type rating, one of which must be full-stop. If the pilot has >500 FH in a similar plane, this is reduced to 4 (AMC2 ORA.ATO.125(k)). FAA has allowed full simulator courses for a long time, EASA has only started to introduce this with special approval in the last 10 years.

A full stop also means you must taxi back to the head of the runway to takeoff again; you probably can't just take off from where you stopped, unless you're a C-130 on the Forrestal.

No, you can do a stop and go on any runway, even midfield or intersection, if there is ample runway remaining.

@CarloFelicione I think Harpers point was that's a big "if" for anything large

"In terms of gas consumption, it’s no less wasteful than a stop and go or a taxi back." Is that really what you meant to say? I'd say it is certainly less wasteful of fuel than a stop and go or taxi back. Should the "no" be deleted?

Practice, practice, practice
I drive by a regional Air Force base and I regularly see them doing touch-and go's with C-17s, C-5s, KC-10s and other commercial models in military gray. Since my drive-bys aren't that long, and I often see them, it's clear they do it all day.
Flying is a perishable skill (meaning you must constantly retrain or you lose it).  There's a word for that --  Think of the word "current" as in "up-to-date", then think of how "fluent" becomes "fluency" -- the result is currency, the word for having up-to-date-ness.  It also means money, but not here.
Currency is easy enough for a 2-pilot regional-jet crew that lands 4 times in a shift (2 landings per pilot per day).  It's a lot harder for a 4-pilot transcontinental jet crew (main, relief) that does 17-hour flights, and lands once a day.  (1/4 landing per day).
What's more, not every airport is friendly to touch-and-gos because they simply don't have the runway slots to spare.  At JFK, you'd get a mouthful from ole Kennedy Steve.  "fuggedaboutit!"  Meanwhile some minutes' flying north, at Mirabel, you can have the airport to yourself.
To some extent, simulators are allowed to fill the gap.  Otherwise it must be made up with practice flights, touch-and-gos and landings.
A problem
A commercial jetliner will do a "go-around" even after touchdown

if the tower tells them to
if something is squirreled about their touchdown, like they are too far down the runway and don't have enough left for comfort
if they actually meant to abort the landing before touchdown, called "go around" and punched up TakeOff/GoAround power, but they touched before the engines fully spooled up -- this might be because of weather, e.g. crosswinds exceeding the pilot's comfort level (google "manchester go-around" for lots of these).
if they see some sort of traffic contention on the landing runway, e.g. The landing aircraft ahead of them fails to vacate the runway fast enough, or an itchy Cessna at a cross taxiway seems to have missed the stop line
some other warning, e.g. ATC says "Delta 551, take Bravo (taxiway) to Delta, clear to cross runway 13” and they're landing on 13 right now

It's not for the landing gear.  They have indicators in the cockpit for the landing gear.  Some have inspection windows, periscopes or cameras so gear can be checked from inside.  Otherwise they rely on external inspection: fly by the tower or a chase plane.  If they just can't tell, they land anyway, expecting gear to collapse and hoping they won't.  How the plane behaves with a collapsed gear is not a surprise; manufacturers design and test so the airplane can land safely with a broken gear.

As far as I remember there is one more reason close to point two but not exactly - if the touchdown ended up in a bounce (that is it was to strong and plane wheels didn't stay on the ground) the pilot is obliged to make a go-around. This is an aftermath of one of the accidents, where pilots didn't realise they are not on the ground after a bump.

@Ister That rule certainly does not exist for all airplanes. I'm not sure if it exists for any of them. That would be a questionable rule for airliners especially, since many of them automatically deploy spoilers when the main gear hits the ground. If you can find a source for that, though, then it would be a good idea to add it as a separate answer along with the aircraft type(s) and conditions under which that requirement exists and, ideally, a link to a source to read more.

The human feedback loop that follows a bounce is pretty deadly, though. I could imagine a fleet operator (perhaps smaller planes) putting out a blanket order to go-around after a bounce rather than attempt to recover (and fall into the feedback loop).

Planes do make a touch-an-go mainly for two reasons:

For training purposes, practicing takeoffs and landing (mostly in
small planes)
If the pilot flying cannot determine that the landing, rollout and full
stop can safely be completed. One example is an icy runway
with a thin layer of snow on it. It looks like it has snow but as
soon as the plane touches it, it slides and is in the jeopardy of
rolling/sliding off the runway on the side. in this case s/he simply
declares a missed approach and takes off.

"an icy runway with a thin layer of snow on it" Hopefully in that case, ATC informed the pilot(s) about poor runway traction during the approach, so the pilot flying would be prepared for the situation.

ATC actually did not inform my flight once in STL - a B747 arriving from HNL - which after touching the surface and noticing the conditions, did declare missed approach and proceeded to it's alternate, MCI


text:
How can multiple airplanes prevent simultaneous communication between ATC?
If two planes try to talk at the same time, do you hear nothing or both? Let's say ATC clears someone to land and they read back. I wait 4 seconds and then ask them something, how do I know another aircraft won't ask something at the same time?

As you fly more you will get to know the flow of radio transmissions and be able to identify when another exchange has completed. This comes with time and needs to be learned over time, it may be beneficial to listen into things like liveATC in your spare time to get comfortable. The FAA has a nice little brief on it here with some good pointers:

Listen before you transmit. Many times can get the information you want through ATIS or by monitoring the frequency. Except for a few
  situations where some frequency overlap occurs, if you hear someone
  else talking, attempting to transmit will be futile. You will probably
  jam ("step on") someone else's attempt to transmit, causing a need to
  repeat the call. If you have just changed frequencies, first pause and
  listen to make sure the frequency is clear.
Think before keying your transmitter. Know what you want to say and, if it is lengthy, (e.g., a flight plan or IFR position report),
  jot it down so you do not waste transmission time trying to remember
  what you need to say.

A solid 1-3 second pause should ensure the channel is free for you to transmit. The nature of transmissions is to keep them short and to the point, even on a busy frequency you will have plenty of time get in what you need and get a response.
As for the multiple transmissions at once, you will know! When two people attempt to transmit at the same time a nasty noise occurs. This is addressed here.

6-8 sec is a very long time.  A busy stretch at a local field (class D) can require 1-2sec timing.

@acpilot agreed I have updated, after counting it out in my head 8 seconds is longer than I had in mind when writing this.

One thing I wanted to add is that "trying to get a word in" is absolutely a problem on a busy frequency, as are people using excessively long calls. It's one of the reasons I think using proper phraseology and being concise is so important. Sometimes it's just sheer volume of traffic though, and there's little you can do apart from work around it

As for the multiple transmissions at once, you will know! Everyone on frequency will hear the nasty noise except for the two people transmitting

Typically thats followed up with a very brief scolding from the controller...


text:
What should pilots state initially when telephoning a weather briefing facility for preflight weather information?
I've gotten this question wrong multiple times on practice tests. Sporty's study buddy claims the information is sourced from AIM 7-1, but it's nowhere to be found.
Correct answers included:

The intended route of flight and destination
Tail number
Identify themselves as pilots

What is the actual authoritative language that covers this test question?

It's in the AIM 5-1-1(f):

When requesting a preflight briefing, identify yourself as a pilot and
provide the following:

Type of flight planned; e.g., VFR or IFR.
Aircraft’s number or pilot’s name.
Aircraft type.
Departure Airport.
Route of flight.
Destination.
Flight altitude(s).
ETD and ETE

Personally, I've never given or been asked for the aircraft type (although I have it on my LMFS profile so they should have it), but the other items come up. My typical request is something like this:

This is N12345, I'd like a standard briefing for a VFR flight from
KMDQ to KLOU at 5500', ETD at 1600Z, ETE 2h15

Note that these are many of the same fields as a in flight plan

@rbp yes, many of the red herring answers confuse flight plan fields with the 'initial ID'. I even answered 'state their total flight time' which is ETE and got it marked wrong in favor of Identifying as a pilot. The only logic I can see to answering this question is to use 5-1-1(f) ranked by order of importance when multiple options exist.

remember that when you file a flight plan, you will get a standard briefing in return.


text:
Turbocharged vs Turboprop cruise altitudes
I know that both turbocharged & turboprop engines offer better performance above 10,000 feet than normally aspirated piston aircraft. My question is to what degree do their optimal cruise altitudes overlap?
Which would be more efficient (in terms of both fuel and time) for flying at 17,500?
What about 25,000?

As discussed here, piston engines are more efficient from a strictly power based comparison. Since you ask a slightly more specific question lets look at some operational numbers.
Turbo Charged and Turbo-Props are completely different engines that work on different principals so comparing them might not be totally fair but anyway onto the numbers.
There are few piston aircraft that fly above 17,500, the Piper Matrix being the first that comes to mind thats currently in production and has a comparable turbo prop counterpart. At altitude it burns about 18 gallons per hour. We can compare it to the M500 which is their turbine offering burning just under 40 gallons of Jet-A an hour. However one is running 100LL while the other is running Jet-A so Im not sure you can directly compare the flow rates. From a cost perspective Jet-A tends to be cheaper on the whole than 100LL so your fuel cost per hour could be comparable depending on where you buy your gas. Theres fairly cheap 100LL if you fly to smaller airports so the Matrix is going to eek out ahead on that metric.
The PT6 in the M series turbines tend to have longer lives than the TIO-550's in the Matrix but again your comparing spinning and reciprocating engines which are operationally quite different.
Also of note, since no country is tagged here. You cannot fly VFR at 25,000 ft in a powered aircraft in the US. More practically its highly unlikely any insurance company will offer a policy on a turbine aircraft like an M500 or a big piston aircraft like a Matrix if you dont have an instrument rating.

Thanks for your answer. I don't have POH/AFMs handy for the M series. Can you further explain how airspeed differs for the same power setting as altitude increases?

Comparing fuel burn rates is not very informative. Surely it is a metric, but cost per mile would be a better gauge IMO. The point of travelling is to get from A to B, not to travel for a set time for a given amount of fuel, even though time is a consideration when deciding the means of transport for the A to B trip.


text:
Why are 737 fuselages built in Kansas?
737 fuselages are built in Wichita Kansas and are transported by train to Renton, Washington, where the plane is assembled.
Why outsource the fuselage all the way to Kansas? The cost of moving the fuselages by rail can't be trivial. Perhaps it's because of state tax credits, or maybe because Boeing bought Spirit Aerospace which was in Wichita?
Apparently the 737 used to be built in Renton: b737.org

Boeing sold the commercial side of the business in Wichita to what is now Spirit Aerosystems.

Someone more authoritative can correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a documentary about the 787 Dreamliner that says Boeing has had a lot of problems with their Union'ed employees in Washington where the Union routinely deliberately stalled projects just to increase bargaining leverage. Boeing decided to ramp up production in other locations that did not have existing Unions and subsequently forbid Unions from forming in those locations. Essentially, the Union became too troublesome to work with, so they went around the Union, even though it meant building planes in multiple locations.

@SnakeDoc They can't forbid unions from forming. That's against federal law. Kansas is a "right to work" state, though, which means the unions can't require the company to hire only union workers nor can they require workers to join the union. Washington is not a rtw state so they can require those things. Makes unions much less powerful in Kansas.

@TomMcW they can't expressly forbid them, no, but they can choose not to hire unioned employees, choose not to promote union employees, etc. That's a heck of a lot easier to do in a new plant that has no existing union. Doing that in WA would be met with immediate confrontation, and would lead to massive labor strikes... exactly the sort of thing Boeing did not want to deal with. The Union became too aggressive and problematic, and led multiple strikes during critical times on builds... Basically holding Boeing hostage until they caved to their never ending demands.

The real question is why are all the other parts built elsewhere.

The Boeing 737 fuselages (among other components) are built in Wichita for a variety of reasons:

Before Boeing sold the Wichita portion of the Boeing Commercial Airplanes business to the Onex Corporation in 2005, Boeing was manufacturing structures for their aircraft in Wichita. The engineering, manufacturing, supply chain, and storage resources already existed in Wichita, so it wouldn't make sense to try to move all of that back in house at another location.

The cost to transport large components from Wichita to Renton or Everett via train is likely more economical than to manufacture and store them at the final assembly plant.

On a similar vein, Boeing also uses the modified 747 Dreamlifter to transport components between suppliers and Boeing. Wichita is one of the cities that the Dreamlifter flies into, landing at McConnell Air Force Base.

Btw, from the McConnell AFB runway you can taxi directly to the Spirit Aerosystems facility, which was formerly a Boeing facility.  Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_Air_Force_Base , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_AeroSystems,

(of course you know that, selectstriker2, as your info says you live in Wichita! )

During World War II Boeing built Bombers in the middle of the nation to deter potential hostile enemies from bombing it's factories. Since German/Japanese bombers didn't have the range to fly another 2000 miles to the US interior. Plus the US already had an extensive freight rail system to move agricultural goods from Central/Midwest US to the East/West Coasts.

Actually, I've never heard of large aircraft components being moved by rail betwen Kansas and Washington during the WW2 era.  At that time, aircraft that were started in Wichita were completed there and flown away.  The former Boeing facility is next to a major runway which long ago was part of the Wichita Municipal Airport and now is part of McConnell AFB.  See links in my comment under other answer for more.

PS why the photo of the North American B-25 Mitchells?  If there is some connection to the Boeing Wichita factory, you should explain.  Here's an interesting link re North American's plant in Kansas City KS, which may be the site of your photo -- https://b-25history.org/history/fairfax.htm .  Note the reference to railroad lines, which were used to transport components to the factory, not from the factory.  Note also the reference to design features of the factory buildings to help protect them against bombing attack.


text:
What is the maximum number of waypoints one can have in a flight plan?
Is there any constraint on how many waypoints may be in a flight plan (any regulation), including pilot defined waypoints?

The only info about this I have been able to find is this quote from the ICAO:

ATS data systems may impose communications or processing constraints on information in filed flight plans.  Possible constraints may, for example, be limits regarding item length, number of elements in the route item, or total flight plan length.  Significant constraints are documented in the relevant Aeronautical Information Publication.

Which essentially just says that individual countries could impose (due to technical reasons) restrictions, but there are no general rules.
I have no doubt that many ATS systems would probably break if you asked them to process an unreasonably long flightplan. Hopefully the flightplan processing system is set up to reject such flightplans before they make it into the live system.
After playing around a bit with the EUROCONTROL flightplan validator tool (IFPUV), I have noticed that it starts throwing a syntax error when the FPL message is above approximately 985 characters in total. It's hard to say if this is just a limitation of the validator or if it's actually a limitation of the flightplan processing system. The actual error message is "SYN73: SUSPECT INVALID FIELD (F15 GENERATES TOO MANY RENAMED POINTS)", which I haven't been able to find an explination for in any of the usual EUROCONTROL manuals.
So, for practical purposes, you should probably keep your entire flightplan below ~985 characters, at least if you want it accepted in European airspace. But refer to the local AIP (probably ENR 1.10) of whichever country you are flying in to check if any local restrictions are mentioned.

EUROCONTROL flightplan validator tool (IFPUV) is it available publicly .Can you please post some link

@HariomSingh A simple search would get you there.

@HariomSingh It's accesible via the public NOP: https://www.public.nm.eurocontrol.int/PUBPORTAL/gateway/spec/


text:
How can this ACARS message be decoded?
With regards to the text below, can someone offer either advice or a link to a website/document that would help decode ACARS messages.
I am ok with the following:

QU - ACARS "to" address
Q - ACARS "from" address
FML - data from left hand FMS
FI - Flight Identifier
AN - Aircraft Number
IGW1 - Iridium server identifier
130710 - date/time of data package sent
F57A - package identifier

So that leaves the DT QXT info plus the hex from ADS line.
QU REKASCC
.QXSXMXS 130710
FML
FI AB1234/AN G-INFO
DT QXT IGW1 130710 F57A
-  ADS.TF-
AMU0719603F0D994AFD09849D0D1B05B71C71CAFC85601FFFFF55554AFC800E0EB0F57FF40F0E29AA3FF4100EB11E0E8EFE

Welcome to aviation.SE. Could you please be more explicit on what you do and do not understand? QXT is one, could you list all the terms that you are missing? This will help in giving you a better answer.

For another flight I've managed to get it to convert to this but it's the text on the DT line and POS line that I need help with. Also is there a list of acronyms such as "QXT" that might be available somewhere?
QU CPYXXXX
.REKASCC 161345
FML
FI AA0000/AN G-INFO
DT QXT IGW1 161345 F64A

POSN70071W097007,,134460,360,DERLI,135460,DUKPA,M55,29530,1276,84,CDEB

ACARS encoding is usually different from customer to customer.  Decoding it can be very difficult, even if you have access to the aircraft to have some idea of what is being sent.  Usually, the manufacturer won't share the details with anyone other than the original customer, expecting subsequent operators to pay for custom coding on the ACARS.  A general introduction to the basic standard codes can be found here; www.universal-radio.com/catalog/decoders/acarsweb.pdf .   The 'out return in' messages are pretty much standard.  No doubt there are enthusiasts out there who have decoded at least parts of the carrier specific/aircraft specific coding.  I worked with an ACARS equipped fleet where most of the messages sent were carrier specific and I never did manage to get the decode of the top of climb (TOC), cruise (CRZ) and top of descent (TOD) reports that were being sent automatically, despite the co-operation of the vender and the original customer, as the original customer had thrown that information away.
LIkely decode from the data you have supplied;
POSN70071W097007 = Postion North 70 degrees 07.1 minutes, West 9 degrees 00.7 minutes.
Sorry, it isn't much.  G-INFO isn't the registration either, it would seem.  Registration information is usually hard encoded in a custom plug for each aircraft's ACARS system.

"G-INFO isn't the registration either", it's the name given by CAA to their aircraft register.


text:
Why do piston engines in aircraft burn fuel at a higher rate than a comparable car engine?
I've never understood why piston powered plane engines burn such a large  amount of fuel per time period than car engines.
Can anyone elaborate on this?
I know that a C172M will burn ~5-9+ gph at 2200-2550 RPM between 2k-12k feet based on the POH.  This gives a decent idea of the fuel burn in a very narrow RPM range at various altitudes.  According to the POH, she came with a Lycoming 0-320-E2D. Wikipedia states that the 0-320 provides 150-160HP using a 5.23l engine.
My car on the other hand has a 2l 4 cylinder engine. At 70mph in top gear @ ~2300rpm she gets about 30mpg for a calculated 2.33gph. To me highway speeds at constant RPM provides comparable engine conditions to that of cruise phase of flight.
5.23l / 2l = 2.61
2.61* 2.33mpg = ~6gph
Does that basic analysis hold? Is the larger displacement the main factor in fuel consumption difference between the two? I consider this figure of ~6gph close enough to the 5-10gph listed in the POH for such a back of the napkin calculation if the analysis is more or less correct.
This leads to a follow up question: Is there a reason for the large displacement and low HP? For comparison a 5.7l truck engine from the 70s output 250HP for a gain of 100HP for .47l additional displacement when compared to the Lycoming. I'm in no way very knowledgeable about engine's but am guessing the answer lies in engineering trade offs for making the engine lighter or out of a different material for aviation use or for higher compression ratios for the fuel. Any detailed input would be appreciated.
I know that Volkswagen and Subaru engines have been used for aircraft.  Although my research has been very light, it still looks like the fuel consumption is in the same range.
Going back to my car vs the C172M, or the EcoTec vs Lycoming, 173hp@ 5500rpm for the EcoTec and assuming a (most probably false) linear fuel consumption based on RPM,
5500rpm /2300rpm = 2.39
2.39 * 2.33gph (@2300rpm) = 5.56gph
for comparable HP.
If my analysis provided here is close to the true answer, then I think I've cleared up my misunderstanding by writing out this question.  However, I would like someone more knoowledgeable about such things (possibly an A&P who is also a gearhead) to pipe in and verify or enlighten my analysis.
Thanks!

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

As others have noted, airplane engines and car engines have very different duty cycles.  An airplane engine will typically run at full power for a few minutes during takeoff & climb, then at a large fraction of max during level flight, which may last for hours, and be throttled back only during descent and landing.
An auto engine, by contrast, only operates at full power for a few seconds, as you for instance accelerate up that freeway on-ramp, then it will be throttled back to produce the small fraction of full power that's needed to maintain freeway cruise speeds¹.  Since the power output is proportional to fuel consumed², your car engine uses much less fuel.  Even though it might be rated to produce the same max HP as the airplane engine, in normal operation it produces much lower HP for the vast majority of its operating time.  You can see this in operation if you drive a car with a real-time fuel consumption gauge.  For instance, my Insight hybrid shows ~25 mpg when accelerating or climbing mountains (using near full power), but 75 mpg or better cruising on a level interstate.
Also note that the actual fuel economy of an airplane isn't that much different from say your average SUV.  I don't have the exact figures any more, but I once calculated that my Cherokee 180 got about 18 mpg.  When you figure that it's going twice as fast, and on longer trips can shorten the actual distance travelled by going in a straight line instead of having to follow roads, the comparison isn't that bad.
¹This, incidentially, is why hybrid cars can use electric assist to get much better mpg - the gas engine can be just big enough for efficient cruise, while acceleration is provided by the electric motor.
²To a first approximation.  It's a lot more complicated in the real world.  Look up BSFC maps if you're curious.

"... then it will be throttled back to produce the small fraction of full power that's needed to maintain freeway cruise speeds" - I take it you've never been to Germany? ;)

@falstro you seem to have never been to Germany either. Although the German Autobahn is famous for having no speed limit, traffic prevents more than short sprints almost all of the time. ;)

@AndréStannek Right, that's why I drive at night... But either way, maintaining 90-100mph is usually not impossible, which is a substantial strain on car engines in comparison to the more lenient 60-70.

@falstro point taken :D

@falstro Is maintaining 90 mph really that big of a strain on a car engine? I'm pretty sure I can maintain that speed in my car with less than 50% engine power and mine just has an average engine (around 140 hp, IIRC,) not anything fancy. I don't drive that fast very often, but I've needed to at times and haven't noticed especially high rpms. I do drive 75-80 mph fairly often and that uses maybe 1/3 of available engine power.

@reirab obviously that would depend on the engine. I've driven several cars which were unable to maintain that speed. And yes it's not scientific but if I compare the gas mileage driving through Germany, with that of other countries, an Audi Q3 gains 150 miles in range once I cross the border. Oh and it sheds quite a bit less oil too. So yeah, the added drag is certainly making the engine work... ;) And yes I'm a lay person, I don't know how this affects the longevity of the engine. It was intended more as a humorous remark.

@falstro:  Autobahn speeds are typically less efficient, even neglecting added drag.  The reason is tied up in things like gearing and those BSFC maps, which you have to be an automotive engineer to really understand.  (And I'm not one.)  But IC engines produce their max HP (and HP/fuel efficiency) at a particular RPM.  For an airplane engine, that might be around 2700 RPM; for an auto engine, that's probably combined with gearing to provide efficient cruise at say 65 mph.

You are comparing apples to oranges.
Run your car engine at full throttle and measure again. The aircraft engine will look very good in comparison.
Modern car engines optimise fuel consumption with electronic engine control, so the fuel/air mixture and the timing of the spark plugs and the valves can be adjusted to the actual condition. Aircraft engines are technically still stuck in the 1950s and much more simple, which helps to make them more reliable. This also means that at partial loads the car engine is very efficient. However, once you operate it at or near its maximum power, all efficiency is thrown overboard and the parameters are set for survival.
When you run your car engine at full throttle, it will use a richer mixture in order to use the evaporation energy from the fuel to cool the cylinder. The same is true for the aviation engine, where the mixture is controlled by setting a desired exhaust gas temperature (EGT). However, the aviation engine is designed for running continuously at or near full power, so its cooling system will be more adequate, while your car engine will need relatively more cooling from fuel evaporation because its cooling system is too small for continuous operation at full power.

I'm curious about the "more reliable". Most auto engines these days get easily past the 5000-hour mark without any kind of 100-hour inspection or 1000-hour overhaul. That sounds pretty reliable to me.

@MartinArgerami Aircraft piston engines can go past the 4000-6000 hr mark with little more than oil servicing and spark plug cleaning. It depends on how the engines are operated. If I see an aircraft engine that only makes it to 1000 hrs I know that it was not operated properly, was flown very little per annum, or suffered from manufacturing issues from the time it was assembled.

@MartinArgerami, the 100-hour inspection and 1000-hour overhauls are because you need much higher reliability from aircraft engines and that is because in a car if the engine quits, you pull over and call a tow truck, but in a plane, especially single-engine one, you are in a fix.

@MartinArgerami would the same car engine reliably get past 5000 hours if it was, as discussed, run at full output most of the time?

Honda engines are the same in boats and cars.  So they run at full or 75% throttle for long durations in many use cases.

RPM and displacement are not sufficient to determine the power created or fuel consumed by an engine. You also need to consider the throttle position.
Put your Saab in neutral and try to hold 2300 RPM. How far do you have to push the accelerator? Not very far.  Drive your Saab up a steep mountain and try to hold 2300 RPM.  How far do you have to push the accelerator? Depending on how steep the hill is, you may be unable to maintain 2300 RPM at full throttle, and need to downshift!
The additional parameter you need to consider is the manifold absolute pressure of the engine.
At low power, the throttle plate is mostly closed.  When the intake valve opens and the cylinder descends, it can only suck a little air through this restriction.  This suction generates a strong partial vacuum.  A properly mixed engine will introduce a small amount of fuel to burn correctly with this small amount of air, and burning this smaller amount of fuel with the smaller amount of air produces a small amount of exhaust gas, weakly pushing the cylinder down.  But in neutral, this weak push is all that's required to maintain 2300 RPM.
At high power, the throttle plate is open.  When the intake valve opens and the cylinder descends, it can suck lots of air in through this open throttle.  It only generates a weak vacuum, because it's easy for the air to flow in.  A properly mixed engine needs to introduce lots of fuel to burn with this large amount of air, and burning all this fuel and air generates lots of pressure and pushes down powerfully on the cylinder.  In neutral, this strong push would cause the engine to race much faster than 2300 RPM, or with the resistance of a hill or a propeller, may maintain 2300 RPM.
Cruising on the highway requires less power than cruising in an aircraft.  Your car has a low manifold pressure/strong vacuum/closed throttle on the highway, while the Lycoming has a high manifold pressure/weak vacuum/open throttle, as indicated by their different fuel consumption!

A few observations:
Aerodynamic (parasite) drag is proportional to speed squared. Power to overcome it is proportional to drag times speed - so is proportional to speed cubed. To go twice as fast you have to push 4 times as hard at twice the speed, requiring 8 times the power. And 8 times the fuel burn. But with twice the distance, yielding 1/4th the MPG, all else being equal. That's why the fastest legal sports cars, capable of 200 - 250 MPH, need nearly 1000HP (750kW) engines and get less than 5MPG when doing so.
Yes, aircraft engines are low tech compared to modern auto engines. They also generally drive their propellers directly rather than through a geared transmission. So they have to run at low RPMs and can't get high HP per unit volume. My 1982 Honda V45 Sabre had an 84 HP 45 in^3 engine but could run at 10000 RPM.
Because of the low engine speeds, a two valve head allows plenty of air flow as there's time for it to happen (volumetric efficiency is as good or better than most 4 valve head auto engines). Similarly, the power used to push the pushrods, rockers and valves is returned by the valve springs - they have time to do it.
Why not run small, fast engines with gearing? Propellers and engines have terrific torsional vibration we don't see in cars due to the flywheels and vehicle inertia (and lack of propellers!). Those loads and potential resonances have destroyed many, many attempts to make such solutions work. Yes, designs can be made stiff and strong enough to be reliable and have. The problem is the added cost and weight that defeat the whole reason for going that route.
So, in short - most aircraft engines have a specific fuel consumption (amount of fuel per horsepower (or KW) per hour) similar to most auto engines. The latter are somewhat better due to modern fuel injection, variable valve timing, ignition control, water cooling allowing tight temperature control and mechanical tolerances and such. But for their older tech, the aircraft engines come remarkably close. That's how I've seen Rutan 2 place aircraft fly hundreds of miles with two aboard at about 140MPH+ while getting over 40 MPG (c.f. cafefoundation.org).
Want even better fuel consumption? Go heavy fuel (diesel). The engines in supertankers have BSFCs approaching .16 or so (versus air cooled aircraft 0.45 to 0.5; UAV two stroke engines 0.68 on up).

Another factor in this equation is drag. Drag increases exponentially with speed, requiring a non linear amount of increased power to hold a higher speed. Run your 70 mph test in your car again at 140 mph (a much more realistic cruise speed for the 172 used in your example) and see how much more fuel you burn per hour. It will be a lot more than double.

My airplane has a 360 cubic inch engine (just under 5.9L, 4 big aircooled cylinders), generates 180HP at sea level, and much less at 6-8-10 thousand feet.
It is variable pitch prop, so I guess one could compare that to a transmission.
"Dry weight of the 0-360s, including carburettor, mags., ignition harness, engine baffles, spark plugs, tach. drive, starter and generator or alternator, ranges from 282lbs to 290 lbs."
Being AL on the outside (engine case halves and cylinder bodies (with steel sleeve liners) helps to keep it light.  No radiator, water pump, sleeving for water to circulate thru.
It burns 10 gph and cruises at 145, so 14.5mpg. Not as good as my 180 hp 2L BWM turbodiesel, getting 42mpg or so on the highway, but only averaging 60mph over distance with toll stops & traffic & stiff.
I've made it from near Buffalo to near Boston in 2:15 (good tailwind at 10,500 ft), while the same drive has never been under 7:30.  I'd rather fly!

There are many variables involved: compression ratios, running a lean air\fuel mixture is good for mpg but makes an engine run hot, richer fuel\air mixtures make for cooler engine head temps, on an aircraft that's really important. Aircraft run at higher altitudes with thinner air (oxygen content). Aircraft engines are optimized for a much narrower RPM range than an automobile.  Also, once a car gets to a specific speed it requires less horsepower to sustain that speed than an aircraft which is not just providing speed maintenance but also the lift necessary to overcome the weight of the airplane.

The simple answer is that a properly leaned aviation (the term meaning traditional air-cooled) engine is just as efficient as a quality auto conversion.  Air-cooled engines run typically hotter and therefore have good thermal efficiency which tends to compensate for efficiency gains for direct port injection and other engineering that allows operating at peak efficiency without the work of leaning.
What auto engines give you is a better build and longer lasting engines. Yes, even when run at airplane power outputs continuously. It also gives you better parts availability now that aviation engines are being supplied by Chinese-owned companies. Honda uses the same car engine as their boat engines.  They run just as hard as airplanes and at times full throttle for much longer.
Now, we look at 100LL which is a factor. In Rotax and auto conversions, you need to use a lead scavenger. However, you can run 91 octane even with ethanol with no issues. So if you are flying cross-country and must fill up with 100LL, you get to pay double+ the price, but it works.  Or if you are flying locally, you can fill up with 91 octane and save tons of money.

Because many of them are freaking giant like 8 liters for some reason.
That article about why car engines don't fly is BS, things have changed a lot in 20 years, Cessna was building diesel car size engines into them.
They're horribly innefficient, 2 valves per cylinder, gear driven cam that robs power, gear driven magnetos rob power, flat tappet lifters that rob power, a valve clearance that can vary because it has no setting other than changine the pushrod tube length.
Inefficient combustion chamber design, heavy engine....

Not one person mentioned the air cooled engines piston/cyl clearance and the lower op temp which leads to expansion inefficiency and losses from blowby. Secondly ,maximum torque is where a reciprocating engine develops maximum efficiency and most automotive and aircraft engines are roughly equal in that regard.
The person stating drag from air resistance is an exponential [squared] is correct. That relationship and the higher airspeed of an aircraft is largely why they burn more fuel is correct. As cars drive much over 100kph the fuel efficiency drops off sharply.
Rick in Atlantic Canada

This might be better posted as a comment since it does not offer a very detailed answer to the question, and it also addresses other posts. Once you have enough reputation you will be able to comment on other posts.

As explained in an article entitled: 'Power struggle, or why car engines won't fly', that describes in detail the process of adapting a car V-8 for use in the Lancair Tigress twin engine airplane, street car engines rarely have a power output only not close to the 100% of its theoretical maximum, but are mostly used at 10%-20%, as much 33% of their nominal top power, and this, even if a larger throttle opening use, as in airplanes, equals a better volumetric efficiency, better MEP, and a better mechanical efficiency, is the reason why airplane engines use more fuel per hour, the standard aviation way of measuring fuel use, cruise airplane speed is done at some 50-60% of top power, than a car, expressed in mpg or lit/ 100 km; in a flat road, and under 64 mph, 100 km/ h, a car uses less than 10% of its engine available power. Regards, + Salut †


text:
What is this biplane I saw in Lučenec, Slovakia on September 17, 2024?
I took this photograph on September 17, 2024 at around 6 PM local time (4 PM UTC) in Lučenec, Slovakia. The aircraft flew no more than a couple hundred meters above ground.

I can't check it on Flightradar24 as the free account doesn't allow me to go back more than 7 days. If the data is not available on Flightradar24, can you at least guess what type of aircraft it is and what it may have been doing there at that time?

I looked on both ADSBexchange and FR24 and I did not see any low-lying aircraft around that area from 1530-1630Z on 9/17. Probably the tracking sites do not have ADS-B feeders in that area. Or possibly the aircraft did not have ADS-B.

Given the image quality, it's fairly likely it's an Antonov An-2.
Judging by the trees, light poles and church tower, I'd guess this is eastern Europe(ish) making it even more likely that this is an An-2. The only reason I'd doubt it was an An-2 would be because the fixed landing gear is not visible, but I think it just blends in with the lower shadow.
Edit: Missed the location given in the post - Lučenec, Slovakia
Edit 2: There's a privately-owned An-2 (Reg. OM-SON) at Prievidza, Slovakia, roughly 90km away, which is well within an An-2's range. The colors also seem to match...

https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1575339/om-son-private-antonov-an-2/

Nice job finding OM-SON. That does look like an excellent candidate.

An-2 is caled "Andula" in Czech.

In the enlarged crop of the original photo, you can see one of the wheels below the lower wing. +1